site Search:


 
   
story category
FCC Wants 1 Month Extension For Broadband Plan Deadline
Plan appears poised to disappoint...
by Karl Bode Thursday 07-Jan-2010 tags: legal · competition · fcc · business · alternatives · bandwidth · Politics
Tipped by Romney2012 See Profile
After months and months of feel-good conversation, FCC blog posts, and countless roundtables, there's just 41 days left until the FCC is supposed to unveil our first ever broadband plan to Congress. However, the FCC is asking Congress for a one month extension, so they can dig through the massive volume of public input comments into the plan. Republican FCC Commissioner Robert ("what broadband problem?") McDowell complained this week that Commissioners have yet to actually see the plan, and was quick to give his Democratic counterparts a swat to the nose for being late out of the gate:

Robert McDowell, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, said in a statement late Wednesday that he is "disappointed that the FCC's broadband team is unable to deliver a national broadband plan to Congress by the statutorily mandated deadline."

It's not entirely clear why the extension is necessary, given that most industry watchers believe the plan does absolutely nothing to rattle the broadband industry status quo. Consumer advocates were recently given an early glimpse at the plan and came away very underwhelmed, noting that it oddly fails to even really touch on the industry's biggest problem: a lack of substantive competition. Industry-watcher Dave Burstein, who has been writing about the industry since its inception and has more broadband knowledge than probably the entire FCC staff combined, wasn't particularly kind to Uncle Sam in his latest industry newsletter:

Separately, and to my extreme dismay, I have to report that the Obama administration has put off working on affordability of high speed Internet until after 2015 and probably later, except for a token gesture in lifeline. . . The major decisions have been set by the White House, and they are pablum. . . For higher speeds, both NTIA and DOJ postulate that most of the country will only have weak competition, one or two networks. They go on to say that nothing significant should be done about it. Cowards. (NTIA boss) Larry Strickling should have resigned instead of signing.

Unless you're a carrier eager to perpetuate the duopoly status quo, the plan appears poised to land with a serious thud, disappointing those who wanted the FCC to take this unique opportunity to engage in bold and revolutionary policy. This of course is tied to bipartisan political fealty to the biggest and wealthiest carriers, and it's unlikely that's going to change with a one month extension.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:
jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH

Accustomed...

This country has become accustomed to the status quo and don't really expect anything else from politicians.
--

- "Techie" Jim

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

3 edits

Completely pointless

The ONLY thing the politburo Congress would do with such a plan is use it to jockey bribes contributions from cable cos., telcos and their unions. This Congress is the biggest bunch of corrupt lying thugs in history. They have zero interest in improving the lives of anyone other than themselves.

FreedomBuild
Well done is better than well said
Premium
join:2004-10-08
Rockford, IL
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Completely pointless

said by Z80A:

This Congress is the biggest bunch of corrupt lying thugs in history. They have zero interest in improving the lives of anyone other than themselves.
Well maybe their closest friends and family also
--
»www.freedombuild.net »www.freedom-builders.biz

Hookem99
Deep In The Heart

join:2007-07-18
Pflugerville, TX
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ViaTalk

Look at it this way.......

......the plan will disappoint, yes. But some small community that none of us have ever heard of will get a new bridge or park or what ever else congress will require to pass it...... thought Obama was suppose to fix all this?? Politics as usual.... again!
--
Women think they are clever just because they can fake an orgasm for a relationship, whats the big deal a man can fake a whole relationship for an orgasm!!!!

Lark3po
Premium
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL
Reviews:
·Knology

Re: Look at it this way.......

said by Hookem99:

......the plan will disappoint, yes. But some small community that none of us have ever heard of will get a new bridge or park or what ever else congress will require to pass it...... thought Obama was suppose to fix all this?? Politics as usual.... again!
^^This^^

(Good luck to Texas tonight and RTR!)
hoyleysox

join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

Access & Competition are mutually exclusive

A major complaint about US broadband are lack of access. Concerns over line sharing are a rational disincentive to installing broadband equipment in rural areas. Imposing competition on telco's and/or cable companies is not going to improve access to broadband in those high-cost areas unless the FCC can somehow get potential competitors to share the last-mile development expenses (which will never happen).
jimbopalmer
Tsar of all the Rushers

join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windjammer Cable

Re: Access & Competition are mutually exclusive

You are certainly correct if the only companies allowed to extend rural broadband are the existing incumbents.

If, instead, you assume all companies have equal access to rural incentives, and are not granted huge monopoly powers, (like existing Telcos and Cable Co.s were) then access and completion go hand in hand.

This is why everyone wants to see the plan, to find out if it is just a gift of money to Ma Bell.

»www.netwirelessllc.com/
is an example of what the plan SHOULD encourage, but won't.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.
hoyleysox

join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

Re: Access & Competition are mutually exclusive

said by jimbopalmer:

You are certainly correct if the only companies allowed to extend rural broadband are the existing incumbents.

If, instead, you assume all companies have equal access to rural incentives, and are not granted huge monopoly powers, (like existing Telcos and Cable Co.s were) then access and completion go hand in hand.
Agreed. Incumbents should not prevent any infrastructure buildouts.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
One thing the FCC could do is allow CLECs to collocate their DSLAMs in remotes, and set a cap on megabit-per-mile costs the ILEC can charge for transport between its CO and locations on its network. Heck, if they loosened provisions for DLECs so that there were a minimal number of hoops to jump through to become a DSL provider using the ILEC's copper that would be even better.

Granted, a realistic top speed for pair-bonded ADSL2+ Annex M (the best thing deployable via this system) would be 36/4 or so, with 24/3 being a more usual number (or 12/1.5 for a single line) and 6/1.5 for longer loop lengths (or 3/768 for single-line) but that's MUCH better than the cellular broadband that's available in these underserved areas, and MILES ahead of satellite internet.

clydeglyde

@centurytel.net

Re: Access & Competition are mutually exclusive

i am a dsl tech for an ilec,a competing clec does have thier dslams in our offices.after they place those it is up to the ilec employees to wire them to the outside facilities{cable pairs} and also maintain those cable pairs to the nid.and run trouble to the nid in the case of a clec request.this particular clec is low life enough to try to get the ilec tech to run trouble inside.fat chance of that.i understand the reason for the clecs right to provide service.what is irritating is they are the first priority over anything but special circuits.its really a tangled bunch of b.s.
WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

Re: Access & Competition are mutually exclusive

Techs are pulled off of retail ilec troubles to fix clec wholesale customers. The ilecs quit being proactive because all the do gooders had no problem giving away anything build for the future.
How many of you guys would like if a competitor moved into your building and paid below cost just for the space the used. While your company paid all the costs for heat, AC, insurance, etc. If they want the break room it was theirs. It would be like I came to your house and took your mortgage figured up the sq footage of the extra bedroom and just set the rent for the area. Nothing for that else that makes the home useable.
The ilecs are required to serve everybody that pays their bill. Every other company can serve just the customers and the area they find profitable. With all those advantages most of them still failed.
jimbopalmer
Tsar of all the Rushers

join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windjammer Cable
And that is my point, had you not been granted monopoly's on all that infrastructure, there would have been no push to have CLECs. If none of the FCC rural broadband money goes to ILECs, then there will be no pesky strings about sharing the taxpayer's investment. And there will be competition from the ISPs it DOES go to. Win-Win.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.

Monday, 04-Jun 06:21:12 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.